Florida v. Harris: Drug-Detection Dog’s Alert May Provide Probable Cause to Search a Vehicle During a Traffic Stop

In 2006, Harris’s vehicle was stopped by a Florida police officer for having an expired license plate.  According to the officer, Harris exhibited nervous behavior and had an open beer can in the cup holder.  The officer asked Harris if he could search his vehicle, Harris declined, so the officer retrieved Aldo from his vehicle.  Aldo is a German shepherd trained to detect narcotics, including methamphetamine and cocaine.  Aldo alerted the officer to the door handle of Harris’s vehicle.  The officer believed Aldo’s alert provided a sufficient basis to search Harris’s vehicle.  As a result of the search, the officer found 200 pseudoephedrine pills and other items used in manufacturing methamphetamine.  After admitting to cooking meth and being a chronic user of it, the State initiated criminal drug charges against Harris for possessing pseudoephedrine for use in manufacturing methamphetamine.  

At the trial court, Harris’s attorney challenged the basis for the search and moved to suppress the evidence found in Harris’s vehicle.  The trial court judge denied Harris’s motion to suppress, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed.  

In its decision, the Florida Supreme Court created an evidentiary checklist to determine the reliability of a drug-detection dog.  This checklist included items such as the dog’s prior hits and misses in the field, training and certification records of both the dog and handler, and other evidence known about the dog’s reliability.  

This Florida Supreme Court’s checklist, however, proved to be too rigid for the United States Supreme Court as it favors a more common sense totality of the circumstances approach.  In its unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court stressed that a defendant should have the opportunity to challenge a dog’s reliability, but the probable cause hearing should proceed like any other probable cause hearing by evaluating, under the totality of the circumstances, whether probable cause existed to conduct a search.  

The United States Supreme Court found there was ample evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that Aldo’s alert gave the officer probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle.  The State provided considerable evidence supporting Aldo’s training and reliability in finding drugs.  

Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris mean that every traffic stop will include a suspicion less dog sniff?  Most likely it won’t.  Not every patrol officer is a trained K-9 officer accompanied by a drug-detection dog.  It is also unlikely that the K-9 officers on patrol will decide to get their dog out on every traffic stop.  But for those K-9 officers with the least bit of suspicion, it may mean an increased use of dog sniffs during traffic stops.  

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Harris is in contrast with its decision in Florida v. Jardines.  In Jardines, the Court held that a drug-detection dog sniff at the front door of someone’s home is a search under the Fourth Amendment that requires a warrant supported by probable cause.  The protection of one’s home continues to be one of the most guarded places by the Court.